Aug. 21, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: Lindsay Clancy’s First Words To Chaplain: “I’m So Glad My Children Are Safe”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Another shortened day of testimony that packed a punch in the courtroom. The drama began before the one and only witness of the day, as hundreds of women all dressed in pink with messages on their t-shirts showing support for Lindsay Clancy gathered outside the courthouse for a silent rally. Jurors had to be questioned one-by-one in a sidebar with the judge per the prosecution’s request. After that, the defense put a hospital chaplain on the stand who testified Lindsay’s first words to her were that she was glad her children were safe. She also testified that Lindsay told her a voice told her if she did not follow the command neither she nor her children would be safe.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Friday, August twenty first, and it was another shortened day and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. But we learned a lot about Lindsey Clancy yesterday. And one other note, the drama started before folks even got into the court room and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:24
Speaker 2: Robes.
00:00:24
Speaker 1: Drama outside did lead to some dramatic moments and delays inside.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Yes, you mentioned a shortened day.
00:00:32
Speaker 3: It began late and it ended early, But what happened before and after the testimony are actually a huge part of why yesterday was such a fascinating and interesting day in court. And yes, we saw a jurors individually being brought up to a sidebar, sworn in and answering questions from the judge one by one. That delayed the start of testimony by at least thirty mon Why were they being brought up and questioned by the judge? Well, apparently this is all because there was a massive silent rally that was going on outside the courthouse and prosecutors were very concerned and we would argue rightfully so that this show of support, and we'll get into what was going on outside the courtroom for Lindsay Clancy could have an emotional reaction or could elicit some sort of emotional empathy sympathy for Lindsay Clancy.
00:01:34
Speaker 2: As those jurors walked into the Courtporo.
00:01:36
Speaker 1: I mean the jurors, they've been wiping tears as they've been listening to a lot of this, The same jurors who've seen her cry, what did you say, hyperventilating almost in the way she's been ventilating without a debt at times. So there has been a lot of emotion. It was and just here we go again, ropes. It's just some kind of way emotion is playing into this trial every single day in some manner. It was remarkable that it played into it on the way in to the court yesterday.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, about three hundred women all dressed in pink with support for Lindsay Clancy. And again we'll get into those details in a bit, what their intent was and what they said to reporters outside.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: But look, each of the jurors obviously.
00:02:14
Speaker 3: Told the judge they could put that into a compartment and not let it impact their ability to objectively listen to witness testimony and take in the evidence, all of that. But also then the jury was sent home before eleven am because the attorneys and the judge decided to hold their own conference to discuss possible jury instructions.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: And that got really interesting as well.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: Right, we say interesting jury instructions are some of the some of these trials. They're so long and tedious and confusing to the average listener. They're arguing over words and word placement and prepositions and this kind of stuff. This one is going to be a doozy ye to put these instructions together.
00:02:58
Speaker 3: It certainly is what the basically what the jury can consider, what the jury cannot consider.
00:03:03
Speaker 2: And we'll get into this too.
00:03:05
Speaker 3: But the defense, this was interesting to me, was pushing that the judge include in the jury instructions how to consider intoxication when it comes to a criminal act. But yeah, we only had one witness take the stand. And by the way, it was a packed courtroom. One of the reporters described it as the most packed they had seen it. More than sixty people, everyone trying to get into this courtroom. As I believe, it does seem like more and more people are becoming more and more interested in this case. What it means to have postpartum depression or in this case, psychosis, listening to women's health issues, whether or not a mother who murdered her three children should be helped. Responsible people are really as we're seeing this testimony start to come to a close, people are really getting interested in what the outcome is going to be.
00:03:56
Speaker 1: You know, we noticed this yesterday that some news outlets that normally wouldn't necessarily be covering a story like this. It's high up in their rundowns. Yes there is more. This is what full third or fourth full week?
00:04:08
Speaker 2: This is the I believe this is.
00:04:09
Speaker 3: We're in the fourth week, and so yes, people are taking notice. And that one witness that took the stand on What's Today Friday on Thursday, you even said, Wow, I am paying attention. This woman had an an energy about her, an authenticity about her. A you sat up to listen to her when she spoke.
00:04:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, she had a manner of speaking. I'm not sure how to describe it.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: It was.
00:04:41
Speaker 1: I don't know, it was soft, but it was pleasant. It was it was angelic. It was therapeutic to someone. It was almost like you were getting guidance from some fairy godmother.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: It was actually a really good way to put it. She looked like a fairy godmother. But we're talking about Sheila Kavanas. She is hospital chaplain, so that might actually explain what we're describing. She was at Brigham and Women's Hospital, she was the chaplain. She saw and spoke with Lindsay Clancy more than two hundred times, Babe. She I would say, based on all the witnesses we've seen take the stand for either the prosecution or the defense, is the one person who has seen and spoken with Lindsay Clancy more than anyone else.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: And you know she's not a doctor, Bros. I'm just putting that together, as you say, because I'm thinking about the other guy who met her sixty times, or the other defense guy who's been on the stay in last couple.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Of days, forensic psychiatrists.
00:05:37
Speaker 1: But the one who has spent the most time talking to this lady happens to be a woman of faith and not necessarily the doctor. I don't know what we make of that. She can't diagnose her. She can say what she said and how she came off, but she can't do the medical part. So what does she How does she help the defense here?
00:05:56
Speaker 3: She I think she helped the defense significantly because she spoke to Lindsay's stany of mind. She spoke to where and that has been under assault by the prosecution in terms of this callous, cold, calculated, controlling mom who wanted to take her children with her no matter what, and wouldn't let anyone else protect them other than her, And that was what made her so evil and calculating in killing her children. When you hear from Sheila Kavanaugh describing a much different Lindsay Clancy, it goes a long way, I think for jurors in terms of intent, motive, and whether or not she was in her right mind.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a lot of what this lady right, she's examining just a human being. She's looking at it through a different lens. Rose and she there's no medical degree that let her know a woman was in trouble. It was her training. It's theological training that helped her see a woman who was in need. And it was this is not a woman who sat up there. It felt like she was trying to help this side or that side, but ropes. She'd sound like somebody who was just trying to help Lindsay Clancy like authentically not get away with a crime. What covers just she's here. She seemed like a really impartial observer in the courtroom.
00:07:08
Speaker 3: I agree, and that's why what she said carried so much weight, And I thought what stood out to me She talked about going in to see Lindsay in those first few days and how Lindsay was intubated. She described physically how she looked, how she was unable to speak or communicate. That also went a long way just to show just how injured Lindsay Clancy was. That several days when she went to go see her, she couldn't speak because she had tubes down her throat. But she said the first time Lindsey Clancy could use her voice and spoke, she said this to her, I'm so glad my children are safe. That was incredibly impactful.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, But which way right? What is that an admission of? What is that a confirmation of? What is that evidence of? I don't know that.
00:07:54
Speaker 2: She thought she was doing right by her kids.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: In that moment, and then the prosecution dismisses that as what right? That's what I mean, Robes, It's they're giving you enough in a bigger picture that you cannot help, but no robes that this lady was in trouble of some kind.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: To me, that speaks to her level of insanity, because no woman would think her children were safe when she killed them unless you have something really serious going on. That is not something a mother says when her child is dead. Now, we've heard mothers say after their child's been murdered or had some horrible debt that they're glad their child is in a better place or not suffering anymore. This was very, very different. The other big moment is when she described and testified to the fact that she said that Lindsey told her that she heard a voice. She said that voice told her if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. So that is a big moment.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: That is what the.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Absolutely wants the jurors to believe that Lindsay did what she did because she was following a command and obviously that was a hallucination. That voice didn't actually exist, which means that Lindsey Clancy was in a state of psychosis all right.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: That part the prosecution was trying to jump on that because she only told her afterwards, and only told her once, and she hadn't heard it since is that she never I guess the prosecutor is trying to get at she wasn't going along this line of a voice in her head until after the murder. She wasn't discussing it at all. Ah, the chaplain didn't put in her notes.
00:09:38
Speaker 3: That was the big, big point that the prosecution says that okay, And then they went through all of her notes, and she had detailed notes, and she said, you never put once that Lindsay Clancy told you she heard a voice. And the response from the chaplain was, I'm not there to evaluate the patient. I'm there to bear witness to their suffering. Her prosecution did make a little bit of a It poked a hole in some of the chaplain's testimony, saying you put quotes from Lindsay Clancy. On several other occasions, you directly quoted her, You talked about positive observations you made of her.
00:10:15
Speaker 2: You never once put this in your notes. That that worked a little bit, But I still.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: Didn't believe that the chaplain was lying when she said Lindsay Clancy said what she said. I still think she was such a credible witness. She was that I didn't it didn't bother me too much that she didn't note it in her written notes about her meetings with Lindsay Clancy.
00:10:39
Speaker 1: As Margins might be small in a jury room, Where does that trick? I think about it? I do ask the question, why didn't she write that down? Why wasn't that important enough for her to write down? It is a detailed woman. I like this woman. I trust this woman, she's legit. Why wasn't she write that down?
00:10:56
Speaker 3: It might not at a juror like it's just a it's like hmm, that it does?
00:11:03
Speaker 2: It is?
00:11:03
Speaker 3: It was absolutely worth the question, and her answer wasn't really good enough.
00:11:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, But then you know what I would go to after that, Robes is in the jury room, I would say this to my eleven other fellow jurors, say, well, actually, guys, this lady is not a doctor. She doesn't know maybe that that's a really important note to write down.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: And say that. I'd be like, you know what, that's a good point.
00:11:29
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think yes, And in the deliberation room that could absolutely be understood from that point of view. The other thing I thought she said that was important for the defense, She said. Lindsey talked and talks frequently about her children, she loves them deeply, she carries immense grief. And when she said that, the prosecution objected, the judge overruled because they were like hearsay. But look, she got her point across to jurors that this person that the prosecution is trying to depict of someone who was laughing and playing games and playing dominoes and feeling joyful and seemed positive and upbeat on the anniversaries of the death of her children, on the anniversaries of what would be the birthdays of her children.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: This flew in the face of that.
00:12:16
Speaker 3: Hearing a chaplain say she talks frequently, she loves them deeply, she carries a men's grief and roabes.
00:12:24
Speaker 1: This is the lady. If the prosecution wants to challenge, you can't tell me that you're experts that you put up there who spent twenty minutes with her, and this woman spent two hundred two hundred visits.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Isn't she more.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Expertly aware of where this woman's head is than anybody else, even though she's not a doctor. That is going to be tough to discredit this woman who has spent more time you want me to believe the person that's been out of college for a month, that only met her via FaceTime. Is that what you're telling me, prosecutors, that's a challenge.
00:12:57
Speaker 2: I agree, I agree.
00:12:58
Speaker 3: And so once Kavanaugh, she like Kavanaugh, left the stand, the jury was sent home. I mean they actually were there for about an hour yesterday and then they were sent home. But what happened next was this preliminary charge conference, that's what it's called. But they're discussing what the jury is going to be hearing in the judge's instructions to them when they begin deliberations. And the prosecutors are very much concerned about this notion that the juror could be instructed about what intoxication means to criminal responsibility, and so they said this to the judge. From our perspective, there has been no evidence of intoxication by drugs or alcohol during the killings. And that's interesting because we've seen them with each of these witnesses try to say, well, she didn't take all the pills. There were plenty of pills left in the pill bottles. There were more pills in the pill bottles than there should have been based on her prescription dose, so meaning not only was she not over medicated, she was actually potentially undermedicated. And now we understand why they don't want the defense to be able to say that the drugs were part of the reason why she ended up killing her children.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: I can't and this is what I've said. Off the top words that go in jury instructions explaining intoxication and the application of that when it comes to criminality. Wow, I mean just wow. And the judge, don't they always they have to read these instructions word for word. They're going to get the They still get them when they go back there, do they?
00:14:34
Speaker 3: Uh, Yes, they get them, and they can refer back to them. And that's why you'll see, like in these trials sometimes they'll send the jury home early. They need days and days and days of meeting out what the jury instructions will be.
00:14:46
Speaker 2: And in this case, the defense pushed back, he said.
00:14:50
Speaker 3: Kevin Reddington said, this is clearly an involuntary intoxication defense. So that was the first time we heard that. We've heard postpartum psychosis defense. But in this insanity defense, they also want to bring up this notion of involuntary intoxication, and that was pretty interesting. They said the over prescription of drugs directly impacted Lindsey Clancy's actions that day, so that will be fascinating the judges considering we'll decide later, but when we come back, we're going to tell you about that demonstration that was going on outside the courthouse and why it mattered so much to the prosecution, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. It was a short but powerful day once again in court, but it began outside of the courthouse. Three hundred or so women gathered that it was a big showing. If you see the pictures there were, it was a mass of pink And normally I would say, oh wow, there's a breast cancer survivors reunion going on, just happens to be outside of the courthouse. But no, these women, they weren't protesting, they weren't wearing signs. It was notably what was called a silent rally, but many of the women had t shirts that had phrases like believe she needed help, peace for Lindsey. So they didn't speak, but they were speaking.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: That's going to be a big part of this conversation moving forward. Robes and a lot of people and I know you've seen it, are just spouting off online and calling anybody who would dare not even support her but be willing to listen to what might have been wrong with her. A lot of people think this woman strangle three kids, burn her and that's it. That is really all the debate seems to be online. That group is just saying she deserves to burn in hell, don't want to hear anything else that's hurting. I guess robes in our understanding. I don't know why somebody's just not willing to listen to what's happening in this debate versus just automatic. These folks aren't listening and who are just saying burn and hell?
00:17:08
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, they're like she looked her children in the eyes while she was strangling them. There was even this notion by prosecutors that she did. Oh, this was a gross part of yesterday. I didn't even want to hear this, but the prosecutor brought up this is when we had she like Kavanaugh, on the stand. Did you know that You know, they introduce evidence by asking someone if they knew something, even though they almost certainly didn't, but just to get the jury to hear and to enter this testimony, But the prosecutor said, did you know that Lindsay Clancy was working out using exercise bands after the killings? That was just a really ugh moment for me listening to okay.
00:17:48
Speaker 1: And unbiased, just real reason for why really, from a legal standpoint, why was that necessary? Why was that effect of what was she trying to get at?
00:17:58
Speaker 2: Emotional manipulation?
00:17:59
Speaker 3: But she was so callous that she could use a murder weapon to stay fit while she's in a mental hospital, after she used that same exact exercise band or a version of it to murder her children, that how could she ever even pick up an exercise band again?
00:18:17
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:18:18
Speaker 2: That was tough.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: That adds to another a line of moments sometimes for the prosecutions to where I'm just as a juror, I mean, I don't know how they're taking it, but as I sit there, well, come on, do we really have to? It just seemed petty. It seemed it seems like she was trying to. It was another one of those roles. We keep saying what she say, huhuh, right, she'll say something to say, so yours seriously, like for real, she's using these things that wait, you didn't know sarcasm.
00:18:46
Speaker 3: Sarcasm and you know what, So I take away from the fact that a woman who strangled and killed her children using exercise bands, how that same woman could pick.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: Up an exercise band and work out with it.
00:18:59
Speaker 3: To me, would only a mentally ill person would be able to do that, because actually, even if you were cruelly killing your kids, if you're telling me that that didn't impact her emotionally, then that tells me her she is out of her mind.
00:19:14
Speaker 2: Or she is literally Satan himself.
00:19:17
Speaker 3: Because those are your only two options, and that might be why we see such a polarizing reaction from folks, because yeah, either she is that is true. Either she is the most evil, monstrous human being that could ever exist, like Satan like, or she was mentally ill.
00:19:37
Speaker 2: I don't think it could be anywhere in between. So that's why you've got these two factions.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: The prosecutors are telling you there is an in between, Yes, because she's just a calculated killer. There can be something else, There is another option here, Robes. All is confusion you have. You can't understand why this woman would do it. We have an answer for you. She's just a bad person who was a controlling mother and it was too much for her, and she decided to end it all by killing her kids and then faking a suicide attempt by jumping onto rock hard ice from two stories up. That's how you can.
00:20:11
Speaker 2: Understand it wrote just not really working.
00:20:14
Speaker 3: Also, I don't know if prosecutors saw this, and maybe perhaps this prompted them having the judge pull the jurors one by one to see if the silent rally outside had impacted them in any way as they were walking into the courthouse. But as folks and players from the courthouse were walking in, guests who got a huge round of applause from these otherwise silent protesters. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington when he walked it, people were they were They all broke into applause for defending a woman who they believe needs to be defended, because the whole point of this rally was to raise awareness about how the mental health system and the legal system treats women who are suffering from postpartum depression.
00:21:02
Speaker 1: You know, even if this case, however it turns out, we still should take an examination of how the legal system and how we all society treats women with the postpartum. That's worthy no matter what the outcome of this trial is.
00:21:16
Speaker 2: Ah.
00:21:16
Speaker 3: Yes, but it is expected to be a full day. They're claiming a full day of testimony. And we also got word that this thing may be headed to the jury soon, that we may be seeing closing arguments as soon as early next week. But we'll probably have more information on the timing of it all after today's testimony.
00:21:35
Speaker 2: We will be watching.
00:21:37
Speaker 3: We will let you know what happened, but we always appreciate you listening to us I Ami Roebock alongside TJ.
00:21:42
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk so
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Friday, August twenty first, and it was another shortened day and the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. But we learned a lot about Lindsey Clancy yesterday. And one other note, the drama started before folks even got into the court room and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:24
Speaker 2: Robes.
00:00:24
Speaker 1: Drama outside did lead to some dramatic moments and delays inside.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Yes, you mentioned a shortened day.
00:00:32
Speaker 3: It began late and it ended early, But what happened before and after the testimony are actually a huge part of why yesterday was such a fascinating and interesting day in court. And yes, we saw a jurors individually being brought up to a sidebar, sworn in and answering questions from the judge one by one. That delayed the start of testimony by at least thirty mon Why were they being brought up and questioned by the judge? Well, apparently this is all because there was a massive silent rally that was going on outside the courthouse and prosecutors were very concerned and we would argue rightfully so that this show of support, and we'll get into what was going on outside the courtroom for Lindsay Clancy could have an emotional reaction or could elicit some sort of emotional empathy sympathy for Lindsay Clancy.
00:01:34
Speaker 2: As those jurors walked into the Courtporo.
00:01:36
Speaker 1: I mean the jurors, they've been wiping tears as they've been listening to a lot of this, The same jurors who've seen her cry, what did you say, hyperventilating almost in the way she's been ventilating without a debt at times. So there has been a lot of emotion. It was and just here we go again, ropes. It's just some kind of way emotion is playing into this trial every single day in some manner. It was remarkable that it played into it on the way in to the court yesterday.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, about three hundred women all dressed in pink with support for Lindsay Clancy. And again we'll get into those details in a bit, what their intent was and what they said to reporters outside.
00:02:11
Speaker 2: But look, each of the jurors obviously.
00:02:14
Speaker 3: Told the judge they could put that into a compartment and not let it impact their ability to objectively listen to witness testimony and take in the evidence, all of that. But also then the jury was sent home before eleven am because the attorneys and the judge decided to hold their own conference to discuss possible jury instructions.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: And that got really interesting as well.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: Right, we say interesting jury instructions are some of the some of these trials. They're so long and tedious and confusing to the average listener. They're arguing over words and word placement and prepositions and this kind of stuff. This one is going to be a doozy ye to put these instructions together.
00:02:58
Speaker 3: It certainly is what the basically what the jury can consider, what the jury cannot consider.
00:03:03
Speaker 2: And we'll get into this too.
00:03:05
Speaker 3: But the defense, this was interesting to me, was pushing that the judge include in the jury instructions how to consider intoxication when it comes to a criminal act. But yeah, we only had one witness take the stand. And by the way, it was a packed courtroom. One of the reporters described it as the most packed they had seen it. More than sixty people, everyone trying to get into this courtroom. As I believe, it does seem like more and more people are becoming more and more interested in this case. What it means to have postpartum depression or in this case, psychosis, listening to women's health issues, whether or not a mother who murdered her three children should be helped. Responsible people are really as we're seeing this testimony start to come to a close, people are really getting interested in what the outcome is going to be.
00:03:56
Speaker 1: You know, we noticed this yesterday that some news outlets that normally wouldn't necessarily be covering a story like this. It's high up in their rundowns. Yes there is more. This is what full third or fourth full week?
00:04:08
Speaker 2: This is the I believe this is.
00:04:09
Speaker 3: We're in the fourth week, and so yes, people are taking notice. And that one witness that took the stand on What's Today Friday on Thursday, you even said, Wow, I am paying attention. This woman had an an energy about her, an authenticity about her. A you sat up to listen to her when she spoke.
00:04:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, she had a manner of speaking. I'm not sure how to describe it.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: It was.
00:04:41
Speaker 1: I don't know, it was soft, but it was pleasant. It was it was angelic. It was therapeutic to someone. It was almost like you were getting guidance from some fairy godmother.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: It was actually a really good way to put it. She looked like a fairy godmother. But we're talking about Sheila Kavanas. She is hospital chaplain, so that might actually explain what we're describing. She was at Brigham and Women's Hospital, she was the chaplain. She saw and spoke with Lindsay Clancy more than two hundred times, Babe. She I would say, based on all the witnesses we've seen take the stand for either the prosecution or the defense, is the one person who has seen and spoken with Lindsay Clancy more than anyone else.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: And you know she's not a doctor, Bros. I'm just putting that together, as you say, because I'm thinking about the other guy who met her sixty times, or the other defense guy who's been on the stay in last couple.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Of days, forensic psychiatrists.
00:05:37
Speaker 1: But the one who has spent the most time talking to this lady happens to be a woman of faith and not necessarily the doctor. I don't know what we make of that. She can't diagnose her. She can say what she said and how she came off, but she can't do the medical part. So what does she How does she help the defense here?
00:05:56
Speaker 3: She I think she helped the defense significantly because she spoke to Lindsay's stany of mind. She spoke to where and that has been under assault by the prosecution in terms of this callous, cold, calculated, controlling mom who wanted to take her children with her no matter what, and wouldn't let anyone else protect them other than her, And that was what made her so evil and calculating in killing her children. When you hear from Sheila Kavanaugh describing a much different Lindsay Clancy, it goes a long way, I think for jurors in terms of intent, motive, and whether or not she was in her right mind.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a lot of what this lady right, she's examining just a human being. She's looking at it through a different lens. Rose and she there's no medical degree that let her know a woman was in trouble. It was her training. It's theological training that helped her see a woman who was in need. And it was this is not a woman who sat up there. It felt like she was trying to help this side or that side, but ropes. She'd sound like somebody who was just trying to help Lindsay Clancy like authentically not get away with a crime. What covers just she's here. She seemed like a really impartial observer in the courtroom.
00:07:08
Speaker 3: I agree, and that's why what she said carried so much weight, And I thought what stood out to me She talked about going in to see Lindsay in those first few days and how Lindsay was intubated. She described physically how she looked, how she was unable to speak or communicate. That also went a long way just to show just how injured Lindsay Clancy was. That several days when she went to go see her, she couldn't speak because she had tubes down her throat. But she said the first time Lindsey Clancy could use her voice and spoke, she said this to her, I'm so glad my children are safe. That was incredibly impactful.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, But which way right? What is that an admission of? What is that a confirmation of? What is that evidence of? I don't know that.
00:07:54
Speaker 2: She thought she was doing right by her kids.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: In that moment, and then the prosecution dismisses that as what right? That's what I mean, Robes, It's they're giving you enough in a bigger picture that you cannot help, but no robes that this lady was in trouble of some kind.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: To me, that speaks to her level of insanity, because no woman would think her children were safe when she killed them unless you have something really serious going on. That is not something a mother says when her child is dead. Now, we've heard mothers say after their child's been murdered or had some horrible debt that they're glad their child is in a better place or not suffering anymore. This was very, very different. The other big moment is when she described and testified to the fact that she said that Lindsey told her that she heard a voice. She said that voice told her if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe. So that is a big moment.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: That is what the.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Absolutely wants the jurors to believe that Lindsay did what she did because she was following a command and obviously that was a hallucination. That voice didn't actually exist, which means that Lindsey Clancy was in a state of psychosis all right.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: That part the prosecution was trying to jump on that because she only told her afterwards, and only told her once, and she hadn't heard it since is that she never I guess the prosecutor is trying to get at she wasn't going along this line of a voice in her head until after the murder. She wasn't discussing it at all. Ah, the chaplain didn't put in her notes.
00:09:38
Speaker 3: That was the big, big point that the prosecution says that okay, And then they went through all of her notes, and she had detailed notes, and she said, you never put once that Lindsay Clancy told you she heard a voice. And the response from the chaplain was, I'm not there to evaluate the patient. I'm there to bear witness to their suffering. Her prosecution did make a little bit of a It poked a hole in some of the chaplain's testimony, saying you put quotes from Lindsay Clancy. On several other occasions, you directly quoted her, You talked about positive observations you made of her.
00:10:15
Speaker 2: You never once put this in your notes. That that worked a little bit, But I still.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: Didn't believe that the chaplain was lying when she said Lindsay Clancy said what she said. I still think she was such a credible witness. She was that I didn't it didn't bother me too much that she didn't note it in her written notes about her meetings with Lindsay Clancy.
00:10:39
Speaker 1: As Margins might be small in a jury room, Where does that trick? I think about it? I do ask the question, why didn't she write that down? Why wasn't that important enough for her to write down? It is a detailed woman. I like this woman. I trust this woman, she's legit. Why wasn't she write that down?
00:10:56
Speaker 3: It might not at a juror like it's just a it's like hmm, that it does?
00:11:03
Speaker 2: It is?
00:11:03
Speaker 3: It was absolutely worth the question, and her answer wasn't really good enough.
00:11:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, But then you know what I would go to after that, Robes is in the jury room, I would say this to my eleven other fellow jurors, say, well, actually, guys, this lady is not a doctor. She doesn't know maybe that that's a really important note to write down.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: And say that. I'd be like, you know what, that's a good point.
00:11:29
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think yes, And in the deliberation room that could absolutely be understood from that point of view. The other thing I thought she said that was important for the defense, She said. Lindsey talked and talks frequently about her children, she loves them deeply, she carries immense grief. And when she said that, the prosecution objected, the judge overruled because they were like hearsay. But look, she got her point across to jurors that this person that the prosecution is trying to depict of someone who was laughing and playing games and playing dominoes and feeling joyful and seemed positive and upbeat on the anniversaries of the death of her children, on the anniversaries of what would be the birthdays of her children.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: This flew in the face of that.
00:12:16
Speaker 3: Hearing a chaplain say she talks frequently, she loves them deeply, she carries a men's grief and roabes.
00:12:24
Speaker 1: This is the lady. If the prosecution wants to challenge, you can't tell me that you're experts that you put up there who spent twenty minutes with her, and this woman spent two hundred two hundred visits.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Isn't she more.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Expertly aware of where this woman's head is than anybody else, even though she's not a doctor. That is going to be tough to discredit this woman who has spent more time you want me to believe the person that's been out of college for a month, that only met her via FaceTime. Is that what you're telling me, prosecutors, that's a challenge.
00:12:57
Speaker 2: I agree, I agree.
00:12:58
Speaker 3: And so once Kavanaugh, she like Kavanaugh, left the stand, the jury was sent home. I mean they actually were there for about an hour yesterday and then they were sent home. But what happened next was this preliminary charge conference, that's what it's called. But they're discussing what the jury is going to be hearing in the judge's instructions to them when they begin deliberations. And the prosecutors are very much concerned about this notion that the juror could be instructed about what intoxication means to criminal responsibility, and so they said this to the judge. From our perspective, there has been no evidence of intoxication by drugs or alcohol during the killings. And that's interesting because we've seen them with each of these witnesses try to say, well, she didn't take all the pills. There were plenty of pills left in the pill bottles. There were more pills in the pill bottles than there should have been based on her prescription dose, so meaning not only was she not over medicated, she was actually potentially undermedicated. And now we understand why they don't want the defense to be able to say that the drugs were part of the reason why she ended up killing her children.
00:14:15
Speaker 1: I can't and this is what I've said. Off the top words that go in jury instructions explaining intoxication and the application of that when it comes to criminality. Wow, I mean just wow. And the judge, don't they always they have to read these instructions word for word. They're going to get the They still get them when they go back there, do they?
00:14:34
Speaker 3: Uh, Yes, they get them, and they can refer back to them. And that's why you'll see, like in these trials sometimes they'll send the jury home early. They need days and days and days of meeting out what the jury instructions will be.
00:14:46
Speaker 2: And in this case, the defense pushed back, he said.
00:14:50
Speaker 3: Kevin Reddington said, this is clearly an involuntary intoxication defense. So that was the first time we heard that. We've heard postpartum psychosis defense. But in this insanity defense, they also want to bring up this notion of involuntary intoxication, and that was pretty interesting. They said the over prescription of drugs directly impacted Lindsey Clancy's actions that day, so that will be fascinating the judges considering we'll decide later, but when we come back, we're going to tell you about that demonstration that was going on outside the courthouse and why it mattered so much to the prosecution, and welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. It was a short but powerful day once again in court, but it began outside of the courthouse. Three hundred or so women gathered that it was a big showing. If you see the pictures there were, it was a mass of pink And normally I would say, oh wow, there's a breast cancer survivors reunion going on, just happens to be outside of the courthouse. But no, these women, they weren't protesting, they weren't wearing signs. It was notably what was called a silent rally, but many of the women had t shirts that had phrases like believe she needed help, peace for Lindsey. So they didn't speak, but they were speaking.
00:16:23
Speaker 1: That's going to be a big part of this conversation moving forward. Robes and a lot of people and I know you've seen it, are just spouting off online and calling anybody who would dare not even support her but be willing to listen to what might have been wrong with her. A lot of people think this woman strangle three kids, burn her and that's it. That is really all the debate seems to be online. That group is just saying she deserves to burn in hell, don't want to hear anything else that's hurting. I guess robes in our understanding. I don't know why somebody's just not willing to listen to what's happening in this debate versus just automatic. These folks aren't listening and who are just saying burn and hell?
00:17:08
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, they're like she looked her children in the eyes while she was strangling them. There was even this notion by prosecutors that she did. Oh, this was a gross part of yesterday. I didn't even want to hear this, but the prosecutor brought up this is when we had she like Kavanaugh, on the stand. Did you know that You know, they introduce evidence by asking someone if they knew something, even though they almost certainly didn't, but just to get the jury to hear and to enter this testimony, But the prosecutor said, did you know that Lindsay Clancy was working out using exercise bands after the killings? That was just a really ugh moment for me listening to okay.
00:17:48
Speaker 1: And unbiased, just real reason for why really, from a legal standpoint, why was that necessary? Why was that effect of what was she trying to get at?
00:17:58
Speaker 2: Emotional manipulation?
00:17:59
Speaker 3: But she was so callous that she could use a murder weapon to stay fit while she's in a mental hospital, after she used that same exact exercise band or a version of it to murder her children, that how could she ever even pick up an exercise band again?
00:18:17
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:18:18
Speaker 2: That was tough.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: That adds to another a line of moments sometimes for the prosecutions to where I'm just as a juror, I mean, I don't know how they're taking it, but as I sit there, well, come on, do we really have to? It just seemed petty. It seemed it seems like she was trying to. It was another one of those roles. We keep saying what she say, huhuh, right, she'll say something to say, so yours seriously, like for real, she's using these things that wait, you didn't know sarcasm.
00:18:46
Speaker 3: Sarcasm and you know what, So I take away from the fact that a woman who strangled and killed her children using exercise bands, how that same woman could pick.
00:18:56
Speaker 2: Up an exercise band and work out with it.
00:18:59
Speaker 3: To me, would only a mentally ill person would be able to do that, because actually, even if you were cruelly killing your kids, if you're telling me that that didn't impact her emotionally, then that tells me her she is out of her mind.
00:19:14
Speaker 2: Or she is literally Satan himself.
00:19:17
Speaker 3: Because those are your only two options, and that might be why we see such a polarizing reaction from folks, because yeah, either she is that is true. Either she is the most evil, monstrous human being that could ever exist, like Satan like, or she was mentally ill.
00:19:37
Speaker 2: I don't think it could be anywhere in between. So that's why you've got these two factions.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: The prosecutors are telling you there is an in between, Yes, because she's just a calculated killer. There can be something else, There is another option here, Robes. All is confusion you have. You can't understand why this woman would do it. We have an answer for you. She's just a bad person who was a controlling mother and it was too much for her, and she decided to end it all by killing her kids and then faking a suicide attempt by jumping onto rock hard ice from two stories up. That's how you can.
00:20:11
Speaker 2: Understand it wrote just not really working.
00:20:14
Speaker 3: Also, I don't know if prosecutors saw this, and maybe perhaps this prompted them having the judge pull the jurors one by one to see if the silent rally outside had impacted them in any way as they were walking into the courthouse. But as folks and players from the courthouse were walking in, guests who got a huge round of applause from these otherwise silent protesters. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington when he walked it, people were they were They all broke into applause for defending a woman who they believe needs to be defended, because the whole point of this rally was to raise awareness about how the mental health system and the legal system treats women who are suffering from postpartum depression.
00:21:02
Speaker 1: You know, even if this case, however it turns out, we still should take an examination of how the legal system and how we all society treats women with the postpartum. That's worthy no matter what the outcome of this trial is.
00:21:16
Speaker 2: Ah.
00:21:16
Speaker 3: Yes, but it is expected to be a full day. They're claiming a full day of testimony. And we also got word that this thing may be headed to the jury soon, that we may be seeing closing arguments as soon as early next week. But we'll probably have more information on the timing of it all after today's testimony.
00:21:35
Speaker 2: We will be watching.
00:21:37
Speaker 3: We will let you know what happened, but we always appreciate you listening to us I Ami Roebock alongside TJ.
00:21:42
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk so